Maria Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236

Background

Maria Escriba, a long‑time Foster Poultry Farms employee, requested two weeks off in November 2007 to care for her ill father in Guatemala; she purchased return travel for a later date and asked supervisors (not HR) for vacation time.
Supervisors (Linda and Ed Mendoza) testified Escriba twice refused additional leave beyond two weeks when asked with an interpreter present; she was told to contact Human Resources if she needed more time.
Escriba left for Guatemala, failed to contact Foster Farms to extend leave, and was terminated under the company’s three‑day no‑show/no‑call policy after she did not return or otherwise notify the employer.
Escriba sued for FMLA/CFRA interference; the district court denied summary judgment to Escriba, tried the case to a jury, which returned a verdict for Foster Farms; post‑trial JMOL and new‑trial motions were denied.
The district court admitted limited evidence of Escriba’s prior FMLA usage and later denied Foster Farms’ request to tax costs against Escriba; both parties appealed and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an employee may decline to have qualifying leave treated as FMLA so that employer must still designate/notify	Escriba: any notice of an FMLA‑qualifying reason automatically triggers employer duty to designate and notify; refusing FMLA is "legally impossible"	Foster Farms: employee may affirmatively decline FMLA to preserve FMLA time for later; employer must inquire to determine intent	Held: Employee can decline to take FMLA leave; district court properly considered Foster Farms’ theory and denied summary judgment to Escriba
Whether JMOL should have been entered (sufficiency of evidence on intent to take FMLA leave)	Escriba: undisputed she gave an FMLA‑qualifying reason, so verdict for employer is contrary to evidence	Foster Farms: evidence (two ‘‘no’’ answers, use of supervisors for vacation approvals, instruction to contact HR) supports that Escriba declined FMLA	Held: Substantial evidence supports jury’s finding that Escriba elected not to take FMLA; JMOL properly denied
Admissibility of evidence about prior FMLA use	Escriba: prior FMLA history was irrelevant and highly prejudicial regarding statutory notice	Foster Farms: prior use is probative of knowledge of policy and that Escriba knew to seek HR for FMLA	Held: Admission was within district court’s discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 401/403 and, in any event, harmless because of limiting instructions
Denial of taxation of costs to prevailing defendant	Escriba: (as respondent) district court cited public importance, close issues, her limited means, and chilling effect on low‑wage plaintiffs	Foster Farms: rule presumes costs to prevailing party; denial was an abuse of discretion	Held: District court did not abuse discretion; reasons (public importance, close issues, economic disparity, chilling effect) were appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772 (9th Cir.) (elements for FMLA interference)
Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (employer put on notice by medical notes; duty to inquire)
Wysong v. Dow Chem. Co., 503 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007) (discussing involuntary‑leave as a form of interference)
Ridings v. Riverside Med. Ctr., 537 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2008) (employee who refuses FMLA may be subject to normal absence policies)
Hauk v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank USA, 552 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2009) (waiver defined as voluntary relinquishment of known right)
Ass’n of Mexican‑American Educ. v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors relevant to denying costs to prevailing party)
Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for JMOL)
Pavoa v. Pagay, 307 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2002) (JMOL standard: evidence construed for nonmoving party)
Xin Liu v. Amway Corp., 347 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (FMLA and CFRA standards treated identically)